Charles HubbardParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us I thank the member for his very excellent speech. He covered most of the more important points of the bill. He has been a very valuable member of committee. He mentioned the number of hours the committee spent, not only dealing with Bill C-6 but also dealing with the other bills that will be before the House.

With his intense interest in this, I certainly see today, from the quality of his speech, that he will continue to be a very valuable member of our committee that works on these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his question.

With respect to the bills concerning aboriginal people, we have put in a great deal of effort in recent months to try to find solutions. It is not an easy job, when there are 630 communities and therefore 630 chiefs, to find solutions that please everyone.

Nevertheless, this government is making efforts to find solutions that are truly fair for the future, to help the aboriginal communities, which are in need of help. Not all of these communities need help. We are told that more than 50% of them are doing very well.

For those that are not doing as well, these bills have been drafted accordingly. As we know, the purpose of Bill C-6 is to save on the huge amounts spent on legal fees. This money would be better spent more equitably for first nations.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today on Bill C-6. I am sorry we have to do it under the threat of time allocation but I will try to take the time to share with colleagues my concern for the bill and my general concern for aboriginal people across the country.

I am sure that most hon. colleagues in the House realize that my concern for aboriginal people is simply not academic. Over a long number of years, particularly in our fostering ministry with children, my wife and I have been involved with aboriginal children for a long time. Indeed, three aboriginal children are part of my family.

I have a 24 year old son, a very fine young man attending Malaspina University-College, who is member of the Ahousaht Band, a first nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I also have two daughters, one who will soon be 19 and one who is 17. Both of them are very beautiful young ladies and are members of the Blood and the Siksika Nations in Alberta.

My concern for aboriginal peoples is simply not just the words on paper. It is something that we have lived with and been concerned about for a long time. I am concerned enough about bills like this to make sure that when they are presented to the House of Commons and to our native peoples across Canada that they are done right. I have a lot of concern about Bill C-6 because I do not think it has been done right.

I rise today to speak on the government's bill to create the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims.

As we all know, the original purpose of the bill was to create an independent institution to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims. Let me state unequivocally that the Canadian Alliance fully supports the speedy resolution of claims. It is unfortunate, however, that Bill C-6 will not, in our view, speed up the resolution of claims, particularly the larger, more costly ones.

Try as he might, and as he might say otherwise, the Prime Minister will have an everlasting legacy over his treatment of the aboriginal people of Canada. I believe that he has had his heart in the right place. He has tried to get it right but it is just unfortunate that aboriginal Canadians continue to pay the price for him getting it wrong.

This has been going on for a good long time. In 1969, when the present Prime Minister was the minister of Indian affairs, he had the opportunity to set in motion something that would have been good for aboriginal people in consultation with aboriginal people right across Canada that quite possibly would have not brought us to the point where we are today in the lives of many aboriginal Canadians. If he had done it right 30-some years ago we would not be in the place that we are today. For the over 30 years that the Liberals have been having a go at this, they have simply had the lives of aboriginal people in the palms of their hands.

Are aboriginal people today better or worse off? I must say that from my experience with our aboriginal peoples across Canada, aboriginal Canadians are still the poorest, most undereducated group of people in all of Canada. Their on reserve unemployment rates rank as high as 80% to 90%. The drug and alcohol abuse is heartbreaking and the imprisonment and re-offending rate is higher than any other group in Canada.

There is the result of the Liberal legacy and, unfortunately, to Canadians and, in particular, to aboriginal Canadians, it is an infamous one.

With regard to this particular bill and the amendments that are being debated, I find it very interesting that the Senate has recognized nearly all the main problems with this bill that the Canadian Alliance brought forward during the previous debates here in the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that the Senate amendments, although slight improvements to the bill, do not go far enough in resolving the inadequacies of it. It is for that reason that I and my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance are opposed to the amendments as well as the bill itself.

I want to remind all members of the House that the Canadian Alliance policy is clear with regard to the settling of aboriginal claims. We state in our policy book:

Our position in land claims negotiations will be to ensure respect for existing private property rights, affordable and conclusive settlement of all claims, and an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders.

I am on record in the past and will say so again today that aboriginal Canadians will not be able to move forward as individuals or as an autonomous group in our society until the outstanding claims are settled conclusively and with some finality.

Frankly, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs are living in a world that has simply passed them by. They refuse to acknowledge that their past attempts to resolve the many outstanding issues have all failed and yet they continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again in their dealings with aboriginal Canadians. Fresh approaches and renewed attitudes are needed in order to see any substantial change for the better for aboriginal Canadians.

That does not mean a top down bureaucracy enforcing laws upon aboriginal Canadians. It means an entirely consultative approach with aboriginal Canadians, where together there will be work done to make this work for them.

The new claims resolution centre will not operate as an independent body. The commissioners and adjudicators will not be representative of all stakeholders, as they will be appointed by the Prime Minister. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike are truly suspicious of the Prime Minister's motives, particularly when it comes to impartiality, patronage and conflict of interest issues. I have every reason to believe that this will continue at this new centre and negate any legitimacy in its final decisions.

As I understand the process involved under this bill, the centre would consist of a commission and a tribunal. In turn the claims process will proceed through three stages: First, the intake and preparatory stage where the first nation submits its claim to the commission, arranges research funding and notifies interested parties of the claim.

Second, the validity stage where the Crown decides whether or not to accept the claim. If the Crown refuses the claim, the first nation can ask for dispute resolution led by the commission. If that fails, the first nation can ask the commission to refer the claim to the tribunal to decide on its validity.

Third, the negotiation stage. When a claim is accepted by the Crown or deemed valid by the tribunal it enters a commission led negotiation. If negotiations fail, the first nation can ask the commission to refer the claim to the tribunal for a binding decision on cash compensation to a maximum of $7 million.

I have several concerns regarding this bill. First, although the centre has been slated to be in Ottawa, there appears to have been no consideration where the most cost effective location for the centre will be.

I am pleased to note that the Auditor General of Canada will audit the financial accounts of the centre annually and a report of the audit will be made to the centre and the minister. Although there is a time lag for the reporting mechanism of the centre to the minister and a further time lag of the minister tabling the relevant documents in the House of Commons, there is the appearance of some transparency.

However what does concern me is that the minister will not be presenting the quarterly reports from the centre to Parliament. I believe this is wrong and that they should be tabled, thus keeping parliamentarians fully apprised of the centre's financial well-being. Surely we do not want to have another billion dollar gun registry boondoggle on our hands.

Regarding the efficiency of the process, the government needs to re-examine its approach to defining access to the proposed claim centre. If it is to be more efficient, the minister needs to determine how to allow more access for legitimate claims.

If the review and tribunal process is truly to be convenient to all the parties involved, it should be held at a time and a place convenient to all the parties concerned. Currently only the convenience of the panel has been considered, certainly not the needs of aboriginal people.

Perhaps the clause that causes me the most concern is clause 77. This clause reads:

The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) adding to Part 2 of the schedule the name of any agreement related to aboriginal self-government; and (b) prescribing anything that may, under this Act, be prescribed.

Once again this appears to be a loophole that allows the government to fill in the blanks after the bill has already passed under the watchful eye of Parliament. Although the Prime Minister talks the talk about parliamentary democracy, he is often unable to walk the walk. Legislation should not be something that can be added to arbitrarily after the fact. This clause should certainly be deleted.

Who is standing up for the taxpayer in this process? Based on the information that has been provided to me, I believe the bill will actually discourage the use of the less expensive alternative dispute mechanisms. Taxpayers pay far too much already. Encouraging and in some cases forcing the use of the court system only adds to the tax burden of all Canadians.

In conclusion, let me state again that the Canadian Alliance supports the fair and expeditious resolution of claims in a manner that benefits relations between aboriginal Canadians, the federal government and every other Canadian. We do not believe the bill will achieve that goal. The bill really creates a two tier claims system. It may expedite smaller cash claims at the expense of larger claims and claims for land.

Again the federal government has got it all wrong with the timing. Under this draft of the bill, first nations cannot file claims based on events that occurred within the 15 years immediately preceding the filing of a claim. We need to stop and think about that for a moment. Aboriginal people need to know what that means for them as a nation. It means that a first nation can be denied its treaty rights for 15 whole years without recourse. In a democracy is that fair? Of course not. Aboriginal Canadians have been waiting for the settlement of their treaty rights and claims for years and years. This bill will only add to that kind of burden.

Clearly the bill will raise false hope and open the floodgates for more claims that first nations have held back. The centre risks being overwhelmed by cases, just like the Liberal gun registry, resulting in an even larger backlog and ultimately higher costs. It is money that could be spent on aboriginal health, aboriginal education and aboriginal housing. That is simply not fair.

In the past three decades, 30 years, the government has settled only 230 claims. There are 500 claims still waiting to be heard and first nations representatives tell us they expect up to 1,000 more claims to be filed. At the current rate it will take almost 200 years to deal with all of these claims. If one were an aboriginal person in this country hearing that kind of figure, how would one feel?

In 1993 the Liberal red book promised an independent claims commission jointly appointed by first nations and the Government of Canada. How many times have we heard of the promises in the 1993 Liberal red book? There was the GST, the ethics commissioner, and now an independent claims commission that was supposed to include aboriginal peoples in the founding and establishment of it. Bill C-6 clearly breaks that promise by concentrating the power to make appointments in the Prime Minister's office. Shame.

At this time, as far as I am concerned and as far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned, Bill C-6 should be scrapped and rewritten. There are too many fundamental flaws in it and the bill should not be ratified.

I ask all members of the House who truly want to see the legitimate aspirations of aboriginal Canadians move forward to take a good look at the bill and vote against it. It is a bill based not on clear thinking and the rights of aboriginals, but on political expediency. We need to give real hope to aboriginal Canadians. Bill C-6 simply does not achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has served the Canadian Alliance with distinction in the past and will probably play an important role in the future with the new conservative party. The member has served as the senior critic in matters dealing with aboriginal affairs. He has a real heart for aboriginal people and a heart for justice being served. He has had the privilege of knowing aboriginal people on a fairly close basis because he has some adopted first nations children.

What is my hon. colleague's take on the absence of timelines in Bill C-6? It would allow the government to stall and stonewall for an indefinite period of time without any reasons. That is the way the bill is set up. Why would the government do this? What could happen since there are no timelines in the bill?

The member knows from his own experience with his family and with colleagues and with all the other scenarios of life that timelines are necessary if we are expected to get some recourse and make some progress. I would appreciate my colleague's response to that.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have their hearts in the right place, but often they do not follow through with legislation that in the long run will do what they say it will do.

Timelines for resolution are absent in Bill C-6. There is no question that can be used as a serious disadvantage for land claims being settled over time. We need a dispute resolution system that will bring closure to these claims. Native people and non-native people also are often left on the hook so to speak in terms of settling claims.

In my riding there are nine native bands. About four or five of them are involved at various stages in the B.C. land claims process. As long as there is no timeline to this, there simply will not be a resolution to it. It is a flaw in the bill and it will not bring certainty and satisfaction to our aboriginal people.

Mr. Speaker, there are aboriginal people living in my province of New Brunswick. It is so important that every member of the House of Commons realize the role that aboriginal people played in the beginning of Canada.

In my riding, the historic city of Saint John, Canada's first city incorporated by royal charter, when our people left the United States and came to build part of our city along with our francophone people, it was the aboriginal people who greeted them. They were there. They do have land claims.

I do not understand why the government will not bring forth some policies that would allow aboriginals to deal with their land claims. The aboriginal people should have their dignity.

I do not know how many in the House have taken part in a sweet grass ceremony. I have taken part in a sweet grass ceremony. When they do that they say that we see no evil, we hear no evil and we speak no evil. That is the way our aboriginal people are. They see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. All they are saying to the government is that they want to be treated fairly. They want the government to do what is right.

Does the hon. member think the bill should be totally cancelled, or are there amendments that he thinks could clarify the bill and fix it up, so it would properly look after the land claims? The hon. member said that there were so many claims it would take perhaps 200 years for every land claim to be looked after. That is not good. We have to take steps to correct this.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in the legislative process there is a legitimate way for us to provide checks and balances in terms of getting the best kind of legislation. The hon. member's party put forward a lot of amendments. Our party also put forward a lot of amendments. Those amendments actually were defeated at this level, but a number of them did get into the Senate. The Senate has made a number of amendments similar to the ones which we on the opposition benches have suggested. The unfortunate thing is that the Senate, from our view, did not go far enough in terms of adopting wholeheartedly the amendments that we suggested to the legislation.

Our only recourse at this point is to defeat the legislation and simply to start over again. I am afraid the government will not do that. It is under some kind of time constraint here that has more to do with the political agenda than it has to do with taking care of the legitimate aspirations of our aboriginal people. I do not think we will see that happen which is very unfortunate.

Charles HubbardParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that last winter our committee visited his constituency and had hearings in the great city of Nanaimo. We heard from the Indian people living on Vancouver Island.

Some of the points the member has made are well taken. Others are questionable in terms of the presentation that we might have. For example, he worries about costs. Certainly costs are a factor in any budget in any given financial year.

In terms of this legislation, we are talking about a certain cost, but we are talking about maximum awards in the vicinity of millions of dollars. We have heard in the House today various figures in terms of costs, the average cost for awards and the average settlements. It might be in the best interests of everyone in the House to consult the figures that are actually available. Maybe they are involved here with different things they count in terms of costs. Generally, I think it is proven that most of the claims that have been settled in the past have an average amount of somewhere in the vicinity of about $3 million.

The member also talked in terms of the length of time it takes to settle claims and how there is a great backlog of claims. That is one of the purposes of the legislation. It is an attempt to speed up the process and to bring faster resolution. We have to see that great amounts of money are not tied up in legal costs. Really the economic benefits of these claims would result in money for the first nations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way for his intervention.

There are a couple of things I would like to say. First, one of the problems, as we know and have already mentioned this, is the absence of any timelines in the legislation. Therefore, how do we empower a centre that will be charged with the responsibility of actually moving these things along if indeed the legislation is quite absent on that whole question?

The other thing we must realize is that there is a huge backlog. I think the government's attempt to move the backlog was part of the reason for bringing in this bill. However, quite honestly, if we are going to limit the amount of claim at this point to $10 million--by the way, that is rather strange because we suggested that it should be up from $7 million to $10 million in committee. The government refused to pass that amendment. We would actually like it at $25 million. Now that it is back from the Senate it is up to $10 million and the government is quite agreeable. That is kind of perplexing.

However, we will not see a lessening of claims. We will see a heightening of claims submissions. We are saying that there needs to be a down the future look at this. This centre and the legislation will not adequately handle what will happen in the future.

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Firearms Registry; the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Health; the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, Steel Imports.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are a lot of questions that must be answered. One of the most important ones is whether this reorganization and new model will be much more effective in the settling of claims throughout the country.

It is believed by those who have contributed and worked on this for some period of time, with all the debates that have taken place with non-native and native personnel, that this is something worth striving for. This is a model that we hope will be able to more effectively process the kind of claims that are being presented before the Canadian government by the aboriginal people of this country.

There are two types of claims with which the centre would be involved: specific claims and comprehensive claims. Before I proceed, I would like to take a look at what those two different kinds of claims are all about.

Generally speaking, specific claims arise when the Canadian government, or Canada in general, fails to fulfill its legal obligations to first nations with respect to its management of their lands and other assets.

Comprehensive claims are based upon alleged unextinguished aboriginal rights and title to land where no treaty has been signed. That is an extremely difficult area with which to deal.

In the old model that is in existence at the present time, it is difficult for first nations people who have no deed or piece of paper or something to declare that their comprehensive claim is a valid one. It is a difficult process to go through and not as rewarding as many first nations people would like to see because the battle continues on and on. Somewhere there has to be a mechanism in order for a process to be more transparent. Fluidity must be there and for first nations people, it must be satisfying.

I am not talking about satisfaction in terms of millions of dollars. I am talking about satisfaction in terms of justice being done. Are we being treated fairly? Are we being taken for a ride in a canoe with a hole in it? Just exactly what is taking place here?

For native people, we hope that this model, which both parties have agreed upon, will facilitate that process, be more transparent, and produce the type of satisfaction where fairness will be perceived as the key factor, and where we can be as fair as possible in these negotiations.

I would like to continue to speak about the model. It would consist of both a commission division and a tribunal division that would help to facilitate negotiated settlements.

However, before I go on to that, there is something that came to my mind which I would like to talk about. What are the real benefits of specific claims? That is extremely important.

I would like to cite my own personal experiences with the first nations people who live only a quarter of a mile from my office in my constituency, the Fort William band, a marvellous community.

It is a beautiful example of the process that is in place right now and how effectively it worked, but it worked extremely well because the band had a specific claim. It had the documentation, the history was there, the treaties were there, and it was successful in achieving its goals.

I would like to tell the House that since this claim was settled, it has already brought long term benefits to both the first nation members in the Fort William band and to its neighbours. Who are the neighbours? They are my constituents that live in the City of Thunder Bay and the surrounding area. How has this band benefited and what was the claim?

There were approximately 1,400 acres of land that the CNR took with the blessing of one of the past governments many years ago. It utilized that land for its own purposes and economic development, and endeavours in that region.

The first nations people, after a lengthy process and battle, managed to reclaim and get title back to the some 1,400 acres of industrial land that ran along the harbour front right to the mouth of the river. On that land today, members will find some of the most vivacious and vital economic endeavours taking place.

Don BoudriaMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and wish to apologize to the hon. member for interrupting his speech.

However, I wish to inform the House that I am tabling biographical information on Dr. Maria Barrados, whom the government proposes to nominate as president of the Public Service Commission pursuant to Standing Order 111.1. The proposed nomination is referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for consideration.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the benefits of the settlement of specific claims. In the first nations people, as I just finished saying, there is a tremendous number of endeavours taking place now. There is an expansion of the industrial park, with industries going into it, including a sawmill, and plans are being made right now for a power generating station. As well, other establishments have been there for quite some time. There were agreements between the private sector and the first nations people so that everybody could benefit.

One of the most outstanding things, as far as I as a past educator am concerned, is the fact that many of the companies that have settled there and are planning to settle there have introduced and will be introducing schemes, plans and strategies for the education, development and enhancement of the backgrounds and the skills and so forth of first nations people so they will have the opportunity to work in these establishments in the various industries. To me that is a very definite positive achievement in this type of specific claims settlement. It will continue because we all benefit, not only economically but socially.

I am very pleased because of the interaction that will take place between the people of the first nations who work side by side with other people from the community in solving problems and creating something that they are all extremely proud of. They are proud that they can work together and proud because they are from the first nations and from the city of Thunder Bay and are achieving something that was impossible to achieve for nearly 100 years in my community.

I am very pleased and very proud of the industrialists, private enterprise, the chief executive officers and the first nations leaders in my community who managed to bring about a settlement of this specific claim to everyone's benefit.

To continue with my presentation, I said that the model would consist of a commission division and a tribunal division that would help to facilitate negotiated settlements. The commission division, where we anticipate that most of the work would occur, would have the authority to apply a full range of dispute resolution processes regardless of the size of the claim. It would not matter if it were just an island with five acres or if we were talking about 14,000 acres. It would not make any difference. It would deal with any claim that is specific as well as comprehensive, regardless of size.

The tribunal division would be making binding last recourse decisions on the validity and compensation for claims value up to the claim limit. We know that currently it is proposed to be $10 million where negotiations have been successful. That is the cap being recommended at the present time. That is an amendment being proposed by the other place for the House of Commons to deal with.

The commission and tribunal would be distinct divisions to prevent undue influence and bias. The centre would be overseen by a chief executive officer whose responsibility would be to manage the day to day administration of the two divisions. When Bill C-6 was first tabled, the financial jurisdiction of the tribunal division of the centre was set at $7 million. Throughout processes in the House and in the other place this financial jurisdiction has been an area of concern and contention for first nations, naturally. The other place has proposed an amendment that would increase the financial authority of the tribunal from $7 million to $10 million per claim.

My hon. colleague in the opposition said just a few minutes ago that he was surprised it was settled at $10 million. He was advocating that it should be $25 million at least. However, this amendment is essential in securing first nations acceptance of the proposed process and in assuring them of the credibility of the centre and of Canada's commitment to settling specific claims.

This change will demonstrate to first nations and to other critics of the bill that the parliamentary process can respond to key issues of concern, thereby enhancing the credibility of both the proposed centre and the federal legislative process while at the same time balancing the need for the fiscal responsibility expected of the government.

What does that really mean? It sounds like legal goop, jargonese and political rhetoric, but it is really saying to the people that we must have a process and a model in operation so that people begin to understand clearly that what is being done is being done for their benefit and for the benefit of all, and trust will grow and develop as time goes on.

There is no doubt about it. With my experience with first nations people for over 30 years, I can honestly say, and I do not think anybody in the House would challenge me, that there is a lack of trust in many of the processes we have, incorporated and implemented by governments of past years up to the present time. They do not nurture any sense of trust or, to a great degree, belief in any attempt by any bureaucrat, by any servant of the government, in their interrelationship and in their daily endeavours to, let us say, achieve some form of response to the claims that people are putting in and the kinds of problems first nations people might have. It is quite possible that in general that level of trust is pretty low at the present time.

However, changes are taking place, and I am hoping that in the years to come, through the model we are introducing in this bill, trust will be generated. It may be very difficult to generate it in the more senior citizens of the first nations communities. However, as the youngsters come through and become involved in the process, as time goes on they will be able to perceive, understand and come to some conclusion that only by working together through a viable and effective model can we generate the kind of trust that is absolutely essential to bring forth a resolution to many of the problems that exist in many first nations communities.